½Å°úÇÐ/öÇÐ
Ãʽɸ®ÇÐ/ÀáÀç´É·Â
UFO/½Å¹°¸®ÇÐ
¿ÀÄÃƼÁò/¹Ì½ºÅ͸®

°úÇÐÀû, ºñ°úÇÐÀû ÀÇÇÐ
µ¿¼­¾ç ´ëüÀÇÇÐ

âÁ¶·Ð/°úÇÐÀû »ç½Ç¼º
âÁ¶·Ð/öÇаú Á¤Ä¡

½ºÄÎƽ½º/±âŸ ÁÖÁ¦
KOPSA ¹Ú¹°°ü

 

´ëÁ߸Åü ¸ð´ÏÅ͸µ
Áú¹®°ú ´ä

Åä·Ð¹æ¹ý
Åä·Ð»ç·Ê

¿¬±¸È¸¿ø °Ô½ÃÆÇ
¿¬±¸À§¿ø °Ô½ÃÆÇ

 

°úÇÐÀû, ºñ°úÇÐÀû ÀÇÇÐ
   
  Àΰ£ ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦, À¯¿£ À§¿øȸ¿¡¼­ °áÀǹ® äÅÃ(05/03/10 Ãß°¡)
  ±Û¾´ÀÌ : kopsa     ³¯Â¥ : 05-02-22 14:11     Á¶È¸ : 4528    
Àΰ£ ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦, À¯¿£ À§¿øȸ¿¡¼­ °áÀǹ® äÅà

-----------
2005³â 3¿ù 10ÀÏ Ãß°¡. 3¿ù 8ÀÏ Àΰ£ º¹Á¦ ±ÝÁö ¼±¾ðÀÌ À¯¿£ ÃÑȸ¿¡¼­
°¡°áµÆ½À´Ï´Ù. ¿øÄ¢ÀûÀ¸·Î Ä¡·á¿ë Àΰ£ ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÑ ÀÏüÀÇ º¹Á¦
±ÝÁö ¼±¾ðÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¹ýÀûÀÎ ±¸¼Ó·ÂÀÌ ¾ø´Â ¼±¾ðÀ̱⠶§¹®¿¡ ¿µ±¹, Çѱ¹
µî ±¹°¡´Â Ä¡·á¿ë ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦¸¦ ÃßÁøÇÏ°Ú´Ù°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ ¼±¾ðÀÌ ¾î¶»°Ô
ÁøÇàÀÌ µÉÁö´Â ½Ã°£À» µÎ°í º¸¾Æ¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
-----------

ÀÌ°÷¿¡´Â Ȳ¿ì¼®ÀÇ Àΰ£ ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦¿Í °ü·ÃÇÏ¿© ÀÌ¹Ì µÎ °¡Áö ±ÛÀÌ °Ô½ÃµÅ ÀÖ½À
´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ·¡ ÷ºÎÇÑ AP º¸µµ¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé 2005³â 2¿ù 18ÀÏ(±Ý¿äÀÏ) À¯¿£ À§¿øȸ¿¡
¼­ ¡°Àΰ£ÀÇ Á¸¾ö¼º°ú Àΰ£ »ý¸íÀÇ º¸È£¿Í »óÃæµÇ´Â ¸ðµç ÇüÅÂÀÇ Àΰ£ º¹Á¦¸¦
±ÝÁöÇÏ´Â °áÀÇ°¡ Ç¥°á¿¡ ºÙ¿©Á® °¡°áµÆ´Ù¡±°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. 

*2004/06/21(°úÇÐÀû, ºñ°úÇÐÀû ÀÇÇÐ)
¡°½ºÄÎƽ½º¿Í À±¸®, Ȳ¿ì¼®ÀÇ Àΰ£ ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦ Áٱ⼼Æ÷ ÃßÃâ¿¡ ´ëÇØ¡±

*2004/11/22(´ëÁß ¸Åü ¸ð´ÏÅ͸µ)
¡°Á¶¼±ÀϺ¸ ±èöÁß ±âÀÚ, Àΰ£¹è¾Æº¹Á¦ ¸·´Â ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ ¼Ó¼À?¡±

±Ý¹ø °áÀÇ´Â À¯¿£ ÃÑȸ·Î ³Ñ°ÜÁ® ±×°÷¿¡¼­ ÃÖÁ¾ Ç¥°áÀ» ÇÒ °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ä
ÅÃµÇ¸é ¹ýÀûÀÎ ±¸¼Ó·ÂÀ» °®Áö ¾Ê´Â ±Ç°í°¡ µÉ °ÍÀ̶ó°í Çϴµ¥ ±Ç°í¶ó°í Çؼ­
¹«½ÃÇصµ µÈ´Ù´Â Àǹ̴ ¾Æ´Õ´Ï´Ù. °¢ ȸ¿ø±¹Àº ÀÌ °áÀǸ¦ ¹Ý¿µÇÏ´Â ¹ýÀûÀÎ ±Ô
Á¤À» ¸¶·ÃÇØ¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. 

¾Õ¼­ °Ô½Ã ±Û¿¡¼­ ¾ð±ÞÇßµíÀÌ ¹®Á¦´Â ¡°Àΰ£ »ý¸í¡±ÀÇ Á¤ÀÇÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ´Ù½Ã ¸»ÇØ
¼­ ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÑ ¸ðµç Àΰ£ º¹Á¦ÀÇ ±ÝÁö¸¦ ÀǹÌÇÏ´ÂÁö, »ý½Ä º¹Á¦¸¸À» ±Ý
ÁöÇÏ°í º¹Á¦ ¹è¾Æ Áٱ⠼¼Æ÷ ¿¬±¸ µîÀº Çã¿ëµÈ´Ù´Â °ÍÀÎÁöÀÇ Çؼ®ÀÇ ¹®Á¦°¡ ³²
¾Æ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¾î¶»°Ô Á¤¸®°¡ µÉÁö´Â  ½Ã°£ÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

¿©ÇÏÆ°, ¹Ì±¹, ÄÚ½ºÅ¸¸®Ä«, ¹ÙƼĭ µî¿¡¼­´Â ÀڽŵéÀÇ ½Â¸®·Î °£ÁÖÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯
³ª Çѱ¹À̳ª ¿µ±¹ µîÀº Ä¡·á ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦ ¿¬±¸´Â °è¼ÓÇÒ »ý°¢À̶ó°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ¿µ±¹
¿¡¼­´Â °¡Àå ÃÖ±Ù º¹Á¦¾ç µ¹¸®¸¦ ¸¸µç Àª¸ÓÆ®(Ian Wilmut)¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿© µÎ °÷¿¡
Àΰ£ ¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦ Çã°¡¸¦ ³» ÁÖ¾ú´Âµ¥, ¼Ò¼ÛÀÌ Á¦±âµÇ´Â µî À±¸® ³íÀïÀÌ Ä¡¿­ÇÕ´Ï
´Ù.

ÀÌ°÷¿¡¼­ Ȳ¿ì¼®ÀÇ Àΰ£¹è¾Æ º¹Á¦ ¹®Á¦¸¦ ´Ù·ç±â ½ÃÀÛÇÑ °ÍÀº ½ºÄÎƽ½º´Â
°úÇÐÀÇ À±¸®, Àΰ£ »ý¸í À±¸®¸¦ Áß¿ä½ÃÇϱ⠶§¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í Çѱ¹¿¡¼­
Ȳ¿ì¼®ÀÇ °æ¿ì°¡ ±×·± °Í °°ÀÌ ½ºÄÎƽ½º´Â °úÇп¡¼­ÀÇ ÇÁ·ÎÆÄ°£´Ù¸¦ °úÇаú
À̼ºÀÇ °¡Ä¡¸¦ ÈѼÕÇÏ´Â ºÎÁ¤ÀûÀÎ ÇàÀ§·Î »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. °ü·Ã ÁøÇàÀº °è¼Ó
ÀÌ ±Û¿¡ Ãß°¡ÇÏ¿© °Ô½ÃÇÒ ¿¹Á¤ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.   

--------------
U.N. Group Calls For Cloning Ban
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 18, 2005

A bitterly divided U.N. committee approved a resolution calling on nations
to ban all forms of human cloning which were incompatible with human
dignity and the protection of human life.

But supporters of stem cell research said they will not be bound by the
declaration, calling the language vague and expressing concern that it
could be interpreted to ban all forms of cloning, including stem cell
research.

The 71-35 vote Friday with 43 abstentions reflected the divisions among
the 191 U.N. member states over the cloning issue.

Islamic countries announced in advance that they would abstain because
there was no consensus on the text.

The resolution now goes to the U.N. General Assembly for a final vote.
If approved, the resolution would only be a recommendation, not a legal
requirement.

The United Nations abandoned efforts last year to agree on a legally
binding treaty on cloning because members could not decide whether to
ban all human cloning, or to ban reproductive cloning and allow stem cell
and other research, which many scientists believe may lead to new
treatments for diseases.

The General Assembly last November decided to seek a nonbinding
political declaration instead of a treaty, but the same division remained.

Both sides seemed to call the declaration a victory. U.S. State
Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the United States was still
pleased.

"It's our long-standing position that all human cloning is wrong, and we
are proud of our efforts to prevent human cloning," he said. "So the fact
that there isn't any action by the U.N. to endorse cloning is a moderate
success."

More recently, the assembly's legal committee approved a text drafted by
the chairman of a working group that spent much of this week trying to
forge a consensus, Morocco's U.N. Ambassador Mohamed Bennouna.

The resolution adopted late Friday calls on member states to quickly
implement legislation "to prohibit all forms of human cloning in as much
as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human
life."

It also calls on countries "to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit
the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to
human dignity."

After the vote, many countries expressed regret that it was not possible
to reach agreement by consensus.

Those against the resolution, led by Belgium, said it would lack clout
because it had to be put to a vote. But those in favor, including the
United States, called it a victory.

"We're obviously very pleased," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the
U.S. mission to the United Nations. "This means that the United Nations
is stating very clearly that member states should adopt legislation
outlining all cloning practices."

Costa Rica's U.N. Ambassador Bruno Stagno, who has led the fight for a
total cloning ban, said: "We reaffirmed protection of human life as a
principle on which you can make no compromises ... When we speak
about the protection of human life in this case, we are speaking about
the most vulnerable, that is the embryo."

He said scientists conducting stem cell research were purposely creating
human life in order to destroy it for research, and that was not
compatible with respecting human dignity.

The Vatican, a U.N. observer, was also heartened by what it saw as a
victory. "We congratulate the important majority which stated its
unequivocal willingness to protect human life," said the Holy See's
observer.

But South Korea's representative, part of a group of at least 20 nations
who favor therapeutic cloning, said human life means different things to
different cultures and religions. He said it should be up to member states
to decide their own laws on therapeutic cloning.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said his country voted
against the resolution and would continue to permit therapeutic cloning
research "because of the hope it offers of new treatments to benefit
millions of people and their families."

"This is a weak, non-binding political statement," he said. "The number of
states that failed to support it is greater than the number that backed it."

Belgium has led the bloc favoring therapeutic cloning. Its representative,
Marc Pecsteen, said: "Belgium doesn't feel bound by this declaration and
doesn't intend to call into question its legislation in this area."

Sweden also voted against the resolution and said it did not feel bound
by it. China voted "no" and criticized the resolution's language as "vague."
The Netherlands, another opponent, said it considered the document did
not ban therapeutic cloning.

Singapore's U.N. Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon said his country voted
against the resolution because it "does not capture the diversity of views
which have been expressed on this important issue."

"Instead, it seeks to impose a single set of values and beliefs upon the
international community," he said.

Bernard Siegel, executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, which
supports cloning for research, said after the vote: "There is no consensus
and therapeutic cloning will proceed full steam ahead ... We're heartened
by that."

By Leyla Linton
¨ÏMMIV The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
---------------------------------